Allowed

Federal Bank v. Prabhakar Banajgole

DRT28 Jul 2025OA/974/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of loan dues against non-performing borrowers who failed to appear. The tribunal adjusted the claim amount by deducting certain charges but reduced the future interest rate to 9% per annum and granted relief over mortgaged agricultural land. Quality: ok. Headnote: Judgment decrees recovery of loan with adjus

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.69,76,034/- with future interest at 9% p.a., secured by agricultural land mortgage, and issue of Recovery Certificate.

Federal Bank versus Prabhakar Banajgole — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on .. 08.11.2022 Registered on .. 29.05.2023 Decided on .. 28.07.2025 Duration .. Y—M—D 02--08--20

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 974/2023.

¶3

The Federal Bank Limited,

¶4

A banking company within the meaning of Companies Act, 2013 (18/2013), having its registered office at Federal Towers, Alwaye, Kerala and branch at – 151, Railway Line, Dufferin Chowk, Solapur 413 001.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Mr. Prabhakar Laxman Banajgole, Age 54 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o – A/P Limb-Chinchole, 171, Deshpande Galli, Near Siddheshwar Mandir, Taluka South Solapur, District Solapur 413 228.

¶8

2 Mrs. Nirmala Prabhakar Banajgole, Age 43 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o – A/P Limb-Chinchole, 171, Deshpande Galli, Near Siddheshwar Mandir, Taluka South Solapur, District Solapur 413 228.

¶9

3 Mr. Arvind Laxman Banajgole, Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculturist,

¶10

Sanap ( OA No. 974/2023 ) 1 of 5

¶11

R/o – A/P Limb-Chinchole, 171, Deshpande Galli, Near Siddheshwar Mandir, Taluka South Solapur, District Solapur 413 228. … Defendants

¶12

:- Appearances

¶13

For Applicant For Defendants

¶14

Adv G.H. Bet i/b Adv Nikhil Barsode. Ex parte.

¶15

Total Claim Amount – Rs.73,65,600/-

¶16

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 28^th July, 2025)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.73,65,600/- together with future interest @14.43 and 15.93% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶19

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife. As per the loan application dated 15.02.2016 of defendant Nos.1 to 3, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Kisan Suvidha Loan of Rs.35,00,000/- and FKCC of Rs.7,00,000/- to the defendants vide Sanction Letter dated 31.03.2016.

¶20

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants have executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. Defendant No.1 has also executed equitable mortgage by deposit of

¶21

Sanap ( OA No. 974/2023 ) 2 of 5

¶22

original title deed under Memorandum dated 31.03.2016 in respect of agricultural land Gat No. 69/3 area 10.175 Acres at village Tograli, District Solapur, in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendants have also executed Balance Confirmation Letters on 29.03.2019 and 06.09.2021 confirming balance due in loan accounts.

¶23

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 01.10.2020, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendants as Non Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, on 26.06.2021, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶24

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendants as per Order dated 22.04.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶25

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Rajeev Darshan Sharma, Branch Head/ Authorized Signatory holding power of attorney on behalf of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the

¶26

Sanap ( OA No. 974/2023 ) 3 of 5

¶27

original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1/1 to AW1/20 along with list (Exhibit 9), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶28

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank.

¶29

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶30

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets, therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶31

The applicant Bank has claimed other charges of Rs.51,045/- and Penal Interest of Rs.2,45,550/- for AMTL account and Penal Interest of Rs.92,971/- for FKCC account i.e. total of Rs.3,89,566/- which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.73,65,600/- is reduced to Rs.69,76,034/-.

¶32

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @14.43 and 15.93% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted

¶33

Sanap ( OA No. 974/2023 ) 4 of 5

¶34

@9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

A} Original Application No. 974/2023 is allowed with proportionate costs.

¶37

B} Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.69,76,034/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Thirty Four only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 08.11.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶38

C} The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage in respect of agricultural land Gat No. 69/3 area 10.175 Acres at village Tograli, District Solapur, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.6 and Schedule I of the Original Application.

¶39

D} The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property to recover its dues.

¶40

E} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶41

F} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶42

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 28.07.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune. Sanap ( OA No. 974/2023 ) 5 of 5

Federal Bank v. Prabhakar Banajgole

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Federal Bank v. Prabhakar Banajgole

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Federal Bank versus Rajgonda

Uco Bank versus Mahendra Narutepatil

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Devanand More

Federal Bank versus Sunanda Yadav

State Bank of India versus Ananda Nagargoje

Bank of India versus Rama Nivrutti Yadav